“Ruth commences by relating Elimelech’s migration from Beth Lehem in Jehudah to Moab.”
“Why did he do this, Peter’le?”
“We are told there was a famine in ‘the land’, presumably in Jehudah.”
“You better spell out the route he took, Peter’le. The book does not specify. Some people would want to familiarise themselves with it.”
“Beth Lehem (which means ‘House of Bread’) is located in the Judean Hills. To get to Moab, a traveller had to descend to the Judean desert and onwards to Jericho. There he would cross the Jordan and ascend to the Moab Plateau (known as the ‘fields of Moab’).”
“Was it a difficult and lengthy journey?”
“Not really. It covered about 70 kilometres and took about six days by foot.”
“Was Moab a suitable venue when famine prevailed in Jehudah? Wouldn’t Egypt have been a safer destination?”
“Not really. Egypt is some 400 kilometres away from Beth Lehem and has had a culture and a language differing from Jehudah’s. Moab was more appropriate. Its language was very similar to Hebrew; it was closer to Beth Lehem than Egypt and a move to it could be made readily.”
“So much for the destination. Did Elimelech’s family join him?”
“It did, Maestro. Elimelech was accompanied by his two sons, Maḥlon and Kilyon, and his wife, Naomi.”
“What do these names tell us, Peter’le?”
“Maḥlon suggests that its bearer was a sickly man; Kilyon tells us that the person is dispensable, and ‘Naomi’ means ‘pleasant’.”
“The significance of these names is straightforward. Kilyon signals the extinction of the bearer and his family tree. The lineage of Maḥlon, whose sickliness suggest early death, may be redeemed. Well, what else are we told about these people?”
“Elimelech died in Moab, Maestro. Presumably, he was buried there. After his demise, the two sons married Moabite girls: Maḥlon wed Ruth and Kilyon took Orpah.”
“What do these names imply, Peter’le?”
“Orpah is straightforward. It depicts a person that does not follow a lead but ‘turns back’. ‘Ruth’ is not as clear. Philologists have worked out that it is traceable to ‘friendship’ or ‘companionship’.”
“Suitable in the case of the unfolding story?” asked Theophil.
“It is. After some ten years the sons died. Naomi, who heard that the deprivation was over in Jehudah, decided to return to Beth Lehem. Initially, both daughters-in-law sought to accompany her. When she entreated them to stay put, Orpah kissed her goodbye but Ruth stayed with her, saying: ‘Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee; for wherever thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodges, I will lodge; thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God’.”
“Hold on, Peter’le: does this mean that she converted?”
“The author implies this, Maestro.”
“But is this in accord with the prevailing stance of Judaism?”
“It is not, Maestro. According to Deuteronomy [23:3-6] Ammonites and Moabites cannot be admitted to ‘God’s community’. And, in any event, Judaism is non-proselyting. Conversion is subject to certain rituals and formal acceptance.”
“This is, indeed, the approach of modern Judaism, Peter’le. How about older traditions?”
“We know from Esther that gentiles could convert. I suspect that in Ruth’s era a convert’s ‘act of faith’ was adequate. Further, Jonah indicates that gentiles could make offerings and undertake vows to Jehovah even without abandoning their own deities.”
“Well, Peter’le, we must not lose the thread. Please continue to narrate.”
“When Naomi and Ruth arrived in Beth Lehem, the entire population was abuzz or stirred. They found it hard to believe that the returning person was Naomi.”
“Why, Peter’le?”
“The author does not tell us; but Naomi’s reply throws light on the reason. She told the townspeople that she had left in affluence but had returned ‘empty’. On a plain reading she may be regarded as saying that she had left in the company of her husband and sons but returned without them. But, Maestro, such a reading would sidestep her coming back with the loyal and
devoted Ruth.”
“I take your point, Peter’le. So, what does the author seek to convey?”
“Perhaps he hints that Elimelech had been a well-established or even prosperous man. We know that he possessed land (later redeemed by Boaz). Further, Elimelech’s name is of relevance: it means ‘My God is King’. Traditional Midrashim suggest that Elimelech left at the very start of the famine, seeking to look after himself but shirking the duty to help his fellows to obviate a collapse threatened when the famine commenced.”
“I take your point, Peter’le. But I have noticed that, when you mention Elimelech, a sly grin descends on your face. Why is that?”
“Don’t you know?”
“I’d like to hear it from your own mouth!”
“In modern Hebrew, ‘Elimelech’ is used to describe a clumsy fellow – a schlemiel!”
“But what has this got to do with Ruth? Your association relates to a funny Yiddish song, about the Rebbe Elimelch. That worthy was a Hassid – not a person figuring in the book we discuss.”
“You are right, Maestro. I’ll try to suppress my untoward amusement. Still, Ruth does not include any favourable comment about Naomi’s husband or his two sons.”
“Quite so. And we better proceed to discuss the text.”
“Naomi and Ruth arrived in Beth Lehem at the beginning of the barley harvest, which fell late in March or at the beginning of April. It was followed by the wheat harvest, which usually commenced in May or June.”
“Elimelech had a plot of land. Well, was it productive?”
“It was not. It is clear from the text that Ruth and Naomi were poor. Under biblical law [Lev. 19:9-10 and Deut. 24:19-22], the poor, widows and resident foreigners [gerim] were entitled to glean, that is, to collect the ears of barley and wheat left behind by the reapers. Naomi’s widowhood and Ruth’s status as a ger placed them squarely within this group. Their poverty underscored it.”
“And Peter’le, this right was also consecrated by custom.”
“At Naomi’s suggestion, Ruth gleaned in Boaz’s field,” I continued.
“What does the text tell us about him?”
“He is described as an ‘Ish Ḥayil’, that is, a successful, prosperous and principled man. He was known to Elimelech and was of the same family. Boaz lived in Beth Lehem, where he probably had his headquarters. He ‘went up’ to the field during the harvesting season. He himself did not carry out the manual work involved. He engaged reapers. The author implies that he was not young.”
“A positive portrait?” asked Theophil.
“It is. It contrasts with the description of Elimelech, who is mentioned without the addition of any accolades.”
“Point taken,” agreed Theophil. “Please continue.”
“Boaz was told that Ruth was the Moabite girl, who had chosen to leave her own country and home and accompanied Naomi. He was impressed, stressed that Ruth had adopted her mother-in-law’s faith and treated Ruth favourably.”
“Did he recognise Ruth’s conversion? Did he approve?”
“He did! This is implicit in the wording.”
“Ruth hand-threshed the barley she collected and it yielded one ephah [איפה ].”
“What does this measure signify, Peter’le?”
“An ephah is about 13 to 18 kilos: an exceptionally large quantity for ‘gleaning’. This tells us that Boaz’s attitude towards Ruth was generous.”
“Does the text convey this?”
“It does. When Ruth returned home with it, Naomi appreciated that they were favoured by Boaz, saw in this the hand of providence and conceived a plan. She asked Ruth to put on her best clothes, to proceed to Boaz’s threshing ground when barley was winnowed and sown (in late autumn or early winter) and to lie down next to his place of sleep. Ruth did so. When Boaz woke up, Ruth asked him to ‘redeem’ her.”
“Hold on, Peter’le. The subject of redemption is cardinal. It may be rightly described as the heavy point of Ruth. Do not elaborate now; we’ll come back to it later.”
“Very well, Maestro. Boaz told Ruth that there was a redeemer closer than him but informed Ruth that he was next in line and that he was prepared to redeem her. He also told her that her decision to prefer him to younger adults was ḥésed.”
“What does this word mean. Peter’le?”
“It depends on the context. Generally, it means ‘grace’ or ‘kindness’. I believe that this is the best meaning attributable to Boaz’s words. He followed them up by giving Ruth six measures of barley. His aim was to ensure she would not return home empty-handed. The gift also signified his decision to act.”
“Why six rather than, say, five or eight measures?”
“Six is close to seven, which implies a completed act or period – like the seven days of a week. Six signifies an incomplete process but the firm intention to go ahead. Naomi understood. She told Ruth that Boaz had undertaken to proceed forthwith. And, once again, she saw in it the hand of God and his ḥésed.”
“Up to now Naomi remains in the background, Peter’le. She makes the decision to return to Jehudah and takes the initiative of advising Ruth to proceed to Boaz’s threshing ground. All the same, the emphasis is on Ruth.”
“It is,” I agreed. “On the very next day Boaz went to the city’s gate. When the ‘closer redeemer’ passed by, Boaz asked him to sit there and summoned some of the town’s elders.”
“Is this location of significance?”
“It is. The gate of a town frequently functioned as the place at which transactions were concluded. In a period in which literacy was limited, dealings were often carried out by formal witnessing or attestations.”
“Any example?” asked Theophil.
“Abraham’s purchase of a burial ground, narrated in Genesis [cap. 23]. This highly important transaction was carried out at the gate.”
“Very well. And how about the transaction in Ruth?”
“Boaz told the man, who is referred to just as Ploni Almoni…”
“Was that the man’s name?”
“It was not. It is translated as ‘such and such’. The man’s real name is suppressed although it must have been known to Boaz because both were members of Elimelech’s family. Boaz told this fellow that Naomi and Ruth had decided to sell the relevant plot of land and stated that Ploni had the right to redeem. Initially, Ploni Almoni agreed to do so. Thereupon, Boaz pointed out that the ‘redeemer’ was bound to marry Maḥlon’s widow and that the first born would be named after the deceased husband. Thereupon, Ploni changed his mind saying that he could not go ahead because, if he did, he would ‘harm his own inheritance’. As Boaz was next in line, he there and then agreed to redeem. Ploni sealed the bargain – that is, waived his priority right – by taking off his shoe. Boaz bought the land, married Ruth and the first born was called Obed by the town’s women. And we are told that Obed was King David’s great grandfather. Naomi became the newborn’s nanny; and her own future was secured thereby. Beth Lehem’s population observed: ‘Naomi had given birth to a son’.”
“Here I have a few questions, Peter’le. First, are the laws of redemption and of levirate [Yibum], as described in Ruth, similar to the legal principles set out in Deuteronomy? Secondly, why does the text suppress Ploni’s real name? Thirdly, is the removal of a negotiator’s shoe an act sealing a bargain? Finally, why is Naomi referred to at this stage?”
“The first question, Maestro, is central. As you yourself have already suggested, I think we better discuss it in detail subsequently. Ploni’s name is suppressed for a simple reason. By withdrawing from his initial intention of redeeming Ruth, he shirked responsibility and acted unkindly. He did not deserve to have his name immortalised. For that reason, it is not disclosed. The third question is a difficult one. Let us leave it for the moment.”
“And the last question?”
“Boaz’s redemption of the land and his wedding Ruth secured Naomi’s old age and conferred on her an important function or status. As Obed is regarded Maḥlon’s son, Naomi’s line through Boaz was saved from extinction. Having become Obed’s governess, she was no longer destitute. Further, she brought up an ancestor of the most highly revered Jewish King. In effect, she ceased to be a poor widow and became a historically significant person.”
“Is this the very end of Ruth?” asked Theophil.
“It is not. The author sets out David’s genealogy, commencing with Perez. At first glance, it can be taken at face value. On a closer examination, the reference to Perez may be one of the heavy points of the book. This, too, deserves elaboration.”
“Do you think these hidden – or camouflaged – messages were fully comprehended by the audience?”
“This becomes clear when we unravel Ruth’s background. I suggest we turn to it.”
“Very well,” agreed Theophil.